Inspector general's probe of Mass. sheriffs’ spending includes communications with Beacon Hill

In his investigation of Massachusetts sheriffs, state Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro is probing a broad set of financial data, communications with top Beacon Hill officials and "non-law enforcement" activities, according to a document reviewed by WBUR.

State lawmakers ordered Shapiro to conduct a deep dive into spending by county sheriffs after legislators agreed in November to withhold extra funding for sheriffs. That followed budget overruns by the sheriffs totaling more than $100 million. A preliminary report by Shapiro is due in February.

In a Dec. 11 request for information sent to one county sheriff’s department, the inspector general’s office asked for data across six categories: financial information, vendor files, payroll, policies and procedures, communication and “miscellaneous.”

The document also sought “all communications” related to funding requests between the county sheriff’s department, Gov. Maura Healey’s budget writing office and the two legislative committees that help prepare the state’s annual budget.

Those communications could help shed light on an area where sheriffs and Democrats in the Legislature disagree: the extent to which the two sides actually discussed the sheriffs’ finances in fiscal 2025.

Democrat lawmakers repeatedly alleged last year that sheriffs did not give them any heads-up on what they described as multi-million-dollar budget overruns.

But county sheriffs argued they were in touch with lawmakers and that they routinely have to ask for extra money at the end of a fiscal year because legislators do not fully fund their budget requests.

There are 14 sheriffs in Massachusetts, and their primary role is to oversee the county jails. In previous interviews with WBUR, sheriffs have said their excess spending this past year was largely to cover pay increases for union employees, repairs to aging infrastructure, medical treatments for prisoners and state-mandated free phone calls for inmates.

The inspector general’s office told the sheriffs not to disclose the requests for information. In the document reviewed by WBUR, Shapiro’s office asked the sheriff’s department to “keep this request and your response confidential.” Other sheriffs’ offices cited similar language in declining to discuss or outline Shapiro’s investigation.

Carrie Kimball, a spokesperson for Shapiro, said state law requires that all investigative records remain confidential.

“As such, we cannot discuss the investigation, but do expect to meet the statutory deadlines,” Kimball said in a statement to WBUR.

When lawmakers denied supplemental funding to sheriffs last year, they said the county offices collectively overspent their fiscal 2025 budget by $162 million.

But the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association said the actual excess spending clocked in at roughly $121 million, of which $26.5 million had already been approved by lawmakers and $95 million was pending.

Legislators’ decision to withhold extra cash for sheriffs had an immediate impact. Some sheriffs started this fiscal year with a negative balance because state accountants used money set aside for the current financial cycle to cover last year’s budget overruns, according to a spokesperson for the state comptroller’s office.

Bristol County Sheriff Paul Heroux, whose office also declined to provide records requested by WBUR, said sheriffs are facing difficult financial situations.

“But we still have bills to pay, and the bills are things that are required by state law and state regulation,” he said in an interview Wednesday. “There's no fluff in the bills that we have to pay. If we have to pay a phone bill or a communication bill because the state Legislature says that no-cost calls is the law, we have to pay that.”

In calling for an investigation into sheriffs’ spending, lawmakers required Shapiro to review all their expenses from fiscal 2025, their compliance with state budgetary laws, employee pay and all spending on activities that are not required by statute.

Shapiro appears on track to comply with those requirements. The inspector asked sheriffs for data on “non-law enforcement activities” conducted outside department facilities, according to the information request.

That includes a description of the activity, the amount of money paid to employees for the activity, the type of pay — regular or overtime — and the funding source, the inspector general’s office said in the information request.

The inspector general also is seeking data connected to a 2023 law that forced sheriffs to offer inmates free, unlimited phone calls, including initial implementation costs, yearly itemized costs and a list of all vendors helping to provide the service.

Sheriffs have argued over the past several years that providing free phone calls to inmates added another budget pressure at a time when costs were increasing across the board.

In a report released last year by the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association, Hampden Sheriff Nick Cocchi and Hampshire Sheriff Patrick Cahillane said the extra money sheriffs requested at the end of fiscal 2025 was “not an anomaly.”

It was “the predictable result of multi-year compounding costs, state mandates, and the growing demands of modern correctional care,” the two sheriffs said in the report.

Barnstable Sheriff Donna Buckley declined to provide WBUR with any records connected to the inspector general’s investigation. She said her office is cooperating “fully and constructively” with Shapiro’s investigation.

“I believe accountability is not something to resist, it’s something to do well. The Barnstable County Sheriff's Office welcomes transparency and a strong partnership with the Legislature because accountability, when done right, strengthens public trust and public safety,” she said in a statement.